Freedom to Speak the Ridiculous
By Sara Pentz

“Just because you have the right to say something
doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to say.”
Fred Friendly, former President of CBS News

Let’s be clear about something. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. Regarding the freedom of speech, this document does not, however, guarantee that what people say will necessarily be rational, logical, factual, objective, truthful—or, perhaps more importantly, meaningful. A comment can be a falsehood. It can be a distortion. But it can be said. Once said, however, the comment can be discussed, criticized, analyzed, questioned, decapitated and revealed for its flaws and inaccuracies. This is called open discourse, and it is a fundamental principle of American law.

Let’s be clear about this Amendment. It applies to the government only and not to the private sector. It was written to protect man from the government. If, for example, the publisher of this publication chose to eliminate my column, he has the right to do so. I can call his actions censorship—I would be wrong—but I don’t have the right to force him to publish my column. One can call anything censorship and anyone a censor, but, unless it is done by a government, it is not an issue of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement by others as well as opposition and lack of support. It is meant to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression by the government. Furthermore, this Amendment does not demand that we hand a microphone to anyone who would advocate our destruction.

The First Amendment is a two-sided coin. It allows anyone to speak the truth or spout any nonsense and not fear banishment to the nearby prison. It works both ways. The people are protected when the truth is told and when it is not. That is the splendid impartiality of this document. But there are those who argue that dissent is censorship or intimidation when it comes from their opposition. They do so in order to stifle dissention. It is necessary to identify this if we are to adhere to the distinction between freedom of speech and the accusation of censorship.

Here are two examples of how people misunderstand this issue. The First Amendment does not protect anyone who physically threatens another person in words or writing. To do so is actionable under the law. As an example, The Washington Post wrote in a recent article: “…it was said that Susan Sarandon's mother accused Sarandon and Tim Robbins of "indoctrinating" her grandson with their leftist views. A snarling Robbins confronted Grove at a party and said, "If you ever write about my family again, I will (bleeping) find you and I will (bleeping) hurt you.” If Mrs. Grove chose to, she could have correctly filed a lawsuit against Mr. Robbins because she had been threatened with physical harm.

As another example, Columnist Jonah Goldberg at Townhall.com makes this point about the lack of understanding of the First Amendment by this star: “Tim Robbins who, after being disinvited from an event at the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his anti-war stance, denounced the climate of "intimidation" and "censorship" that (he says) is preventing open debate and discussion in America. Robbins made his comments during a televised speech (to millions of people) at the National Press Club (before a gathering of the American media).” Clearly, Mr. Robbins is accusing a private group, and not the government, of intimidation and censorship.

Unfortunately, in the oft-times schizophrenic world of news reporting, political/academic commentary and Hollywood stars, there are some who believe that only they have the right to say what they want. They believe that anyone who criticizes them should be banished to that prison—or, at the very least, judged as infringing upon their freedom of expression. Such views also demonstrate their lack of understanding of the First Amendment.

In fact, by using words like intimidation and censorship, many speakers are hoping that their opponents will be silenced. Those people are like bullies in the schoolyard playground who do not wish to debate on an intellectual level. They call upon the word censorship as they would a stick and a stone. Criticism and analysis are their ugly enemies. They mock the very concepts of debate, discussion and disagreement.

Let the reader beware. It is incumbent upon each of us to understand the difference between fact and fancy; between truth and spin; between honest disagreement and dishonest harangue. It is our responsibility to be the judge. Because twisting and spinning, distorting and falsifying are unethical. They may be legal, but they are deceitful and corrupt.

So, let us be clear that the First Amendment is a precious tool that promises freedom from governmental abuses. Let us be clear that this document, guaranteeing debate, dissention, disagreement and criticism, is a marvel of mankind. And, let us be clear that— unless we critique those who use it out of context or as a threat—we lessen its very value.